Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday took up petitions from BRS president K Chandrashekar Rao and senior leader T Harish Rao, who challenged the Kaleshwaram Commission’s report. The Court questioned the government as to why the report was made public before being discussed in the Assembly.

The petition came up for hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice A K Singh. Senior Supreme Court advocate Aryama Sundaram, arguing on behalf of the petitioners, sought to have the government order appointing the Justice P C Ghose Commission struck down. He also requested the cancellation of the Commission’s report, stating that notices were not issued to the petitioners as per Section 8B and 8C. The BRS leader’s advocate pointed out that a copy of the report was not given to them but was instead given to the media with “mala fide intentions.”

The petitioner stated that the appointment of the Commission was politically motivated and that the report was prepared against the rules, seeking a stay on any action based on the report. He claimed that the damage to one pillar of the Medigadda barrage was due to unseasonal rains and not engineering flaws. Aryama Sundaram alleged that the report was prepared to cause political damage to his clients. He noted that the government had given a PowerPoint presentation on the report and circulated a 60-page summary to media personnel without giving a copy to K Chandrashekar Rao and

T Harish Rao, both of whom are members of the Assembly.

The Court questioned Advocate General Sudarshan Reddy on why the report was made public when it was meant for an Assembly discussion. The Advocate General responded that the notices were served as per Section 8B and that the report was not in the public domain and would be discussed only after it was presented in the Assembly. He requested time to submit a counter-affidavit, stating that the 60-page report was prepared to help people understand the Commission’s findings easily. The Court asked when the government would hold the discussion and if it would take action on the report before the discussion. The Advocate General assured the Court he would provide an answer on Friday or Monday, and the hearing was adjourned for Friday.